MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210455696 · doi:10.5430/jct.v10n4p13

Subject Specialisation in Primary School: A Theoretical Review and Implications for Policy and Practice in Zambia

2021· review· en· W3210455696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zanzini Ndhlovu, Bentry Nkhata, Ferdinand Mwaka Chipindi, Bibian Kalinde, Collins Kaluba, Esther Malama, Robinson Mambwe, Katongo Bwalya, Enala Sharon Lufungulo, Hikabwa D. Chipande

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Christian ministryMathematics educationModalitiesPrimary educationPosition (finance)PedagogyPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceLibrary scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ministry of General Education (Zambia) introduced subject specialisation at primary school. However, researchers have not yet sufficiently interrogated the concepts and modalities of subject specialisation at the primary school level to build a basis for an informed position and implementation. The paper aimed to review the literature and international practice relevant to subject specialisation at the primary school level. Interpretive techniques were applied while conducting secondary data analyses. The review established that there were different models of specialisation in education. There were also mixed experiences of subject specialisation in teaching and learning at primary school levels from the countries accessed. Nonetheless, intentional narrowed practice tended to contribute to the competent delivery of service in education. The paper, thus, welcomed differentiated types of specialisation based on school circumstances, learner grade level, staff numbers and teaching and learning facilities. Therefore, the authors proposed a study to explore the assertions and proposals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.411 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207